Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hunau (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hunau

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated this for deletion in May 2009 but was closed as no consensus. I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same. I remain concerned that the article fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). The previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hunau, where the arguments in favour of keeping, and my responses to those, can be seen. Adambro (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The statement "I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same" is no longer applies. Thanks to new sources added by me and User:Sean.hoyland the article now has enough secondary sources to be speedy kept.For example after the article was created Bary's cartoons were published in Best Editorial Cartoons of the Year: 2010 Edition By Charles Brooks. This fact alone makes him notable enough to have an article on wikipedia, and there was a piece on him in the Lamorinda Weekly --Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they were but as was the work of 170+ other cartoonists, I don't think that is a particularly compelling reason to consider him to be notable. I welcome the recent attempts to improve the article but still feel are a little short of the basic criteria that a subject is considered notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". As it stands we only seem to have one source, the Lamorinda Weekly article which would fall into that category. The other sources are either trivial mentions or, in the case of the AAEC profile, not independent of the subject. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see how many Comics creator stubs with at least 1/3 of those missing any references at all we have on wikipedia, so actually to get in 170 top best cartoonist of the year is not a bad achievement after all. Barry is published in many news papers as it seen from the article, and about secondary sources, well, I am afraid he did not win a second praise on the Holocaust denial cartoon competitions in Iran. Could an article about him still be present on Wikipedia?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you wouldn't change your comments after I've already replied. Nevertheless, as I explained in that reply, I have clearly indicated that I am aware of the recent changes that have been made and don't feel the article yet meets the basic notability criteria. I'm therefore confused as to why you suggest this should be speedily kept when I've not accepted that any of the changes made address the concerns I have expressed. As for your comment about him not winning a prize in a Holocaust denial cartoon competition, your are of course correct but it does call into question whether you are approaching this whole issue in the right frame of mind. Our focus here should be this article, let's not be distracted by other articles about other subjects which may be related but are not relevant in deciding whether this article should be kept or not. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have changed my comment because your statements are misleading and contradict each other. On one hand you said: "I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same." On the other hand you say: "I am aware of the recent changes that have been made". So to sum it.

You nominated this article on deletion almost 2 years ago.
The deletion request was closed as "no consensus".
The situation with the sourcing of the article has improved, and 4 extra sources were added.

The conclusion is: The article should be speedy kept.

Please let's stop wasting each other time. If you really concern with under-sourced or missing all sources whatsoever wikipedia's stubs, there's plenty of those to nominate on deletion. This stub does not belong to them.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misleading or contradictory about my statements. All my comments have the time I made them next to them and I would thought it would be obvious that they can only reflect the situation at that time. There have been some recent changes, yes, but I'm not going to start going back and editing comments I've made previously, particularly when, as I've explained, I still feel the situation is the same.

Perhaps we can focus on the issue I have raised here. I don't believe the article meets the criteria of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". What are your thoughts on that issue? Adambro (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought on the issue are: Every single week a few cartoons of Barry Hunau are published in newspapers around the world. It is the best coverage that independent sources could provide on the subject, if the subject is a cartoonist.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we already have well established guidelines for considering whether a subject is notable, I don't think we need to or really should be coming up with alternative ways to try to get the answer we might like. Our guidelines may not cover every possible situation but I'm not convinced the situation with this subject is so unique that we can justify ignoring them in this case. WP:PEOPLE already has a specific section relating to creative professionals, WP:ARTIST, which sets out some additional criteria which may be relevant. Having compared the subject against that criteria, I don't feel the subject meets it. Perhaps, if you don't want to say whether or not you think that Hunau meets the basic criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", you could say whether you think he meets the creative professionals criteria and we can go from there? Adambro (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. The sources given are extremely minor, of local interest only. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly there is coverage independent of the subject. What is significant is subjective. There are thosusands of BLPs which are completely unsourced and there was a recent drive to improve this situation by asking editors to add one source (not to delete them). This is the current practice. This individual is notable and the article is sourced. - BorisG (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course significant is subjective but that doesn't mean we can't consider whether there is significant coverage. As far as I can tell there is only one source that would meet the basic Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria of providing significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. That most basic criteria is for multiple sources which meet the definition, not one. All the other sources are very trivial mentions, literally just a sentence or so, or are not independent of the subject, including the bio written by Hunau and his website.

As I've suggested previously, there may be exceptional circumstances when it may be appropriate not to consider the established notability guidelines for deciding whether someone is notable in the Wikipedia sense, but I see nothing particularly unusual here which would warrant that. Hunau struggles to meet to basic notability criteria and doesn't meet the more specific criteria (WP:ARTIST) relating to creative professionals as far as I can tell. Adambro (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. I am not an authority in the area of editorial cartoonist, but I believe the ref coverage is reasonable. The fact that the artist is regularly published by various geographically distributed sources indicate some measure of notability as creative artist in his field. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Mr. Hunau informed me that one of his cartoons was selected for The best editorial cartoon for 2011 too, which means that yet another RS could be added to the article soon. I believe AfD should be withdrawn.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more sources in this article than there are ;lines there. I do not see any problem with the notability.--Broccolo (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject evidenced by multiple published secondary sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person, plus good sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.